This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Deepfakes, capable of mimicking a person’s likeness and voice with near-perfect accuracy, have transcended their initial novelty to become potent tools for misinformation, deception, and exploitation. The codification of personalityrights could be one way to deal with the misuse of deepfake technology.
This data can range from personal to general information. When AI relies on extensive datasets, questions around the ownership, control, and protection of both personal and IP-related data become critical. They provide right over one’s image, voice, and likeness. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
In a guest post , Satchit Bhogle covered the issue of infringement of personalityrights. It is noted that the test for identifying infringement of personalityrights is to check whether there has been unauthorised use of identity for commercial gain and if there is a likelihood of confusion. Other Developments.
Ochoa authors Chapter 9, which is devoted to the overlaps between copyright and the rights of publicity or personalityrights. The discussion revolves around the protection available for a sports league schedule, assembled by a sports website based on available information.
On top of that, as the case demonstrates, the public domain may receive other threats from an aggressive extension of the scope of personalityrights. 15 B.C.). As an additional remark, this is particularly true in a situation like the one under consideration, where the work is significant for humanity at large.
Recent court decisions have clarified the scope of copyright in film screenplays, personalityrights, and underlying works concerning content creation and licensing in broadcasting. and undoubtedly creating such content includes the distribution of any intellectual property rights to their respective authors.
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
She highlights that the emphasis is on investing only in royalty revenue and not buying the artist’s rights or retaining control over their work. NFTs (Non-fungible tokens), which act as a certificate of ownership for whatever the creator puts up for sale, allow artists to set their preferred terms of contract while making sales.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
Further, the Court specifically addressed the use of social media platforms by citizens to voice their grievances and stated that such use during a crisis can in no way be termed misinformation and it noted that it would treat any clampdown on free exchange of information as contempt of court. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
NFTs are unique digital tokens that represent ownership of specific digital assets. NFTs are embedded with smart contracts—self-executing contracts written in code—that facilitate the transfer and verification of ownership. Secondly, there is a lot of confusion regarding the ownership and authorship of the work.
T Series And Another vs M/S Dreamline Reality Movies on 22 February [Punjab and Haryana High Court] The case concerned the adaptation of late Jaswinder Kaurs biography into a cinematographic film and deals with interplay of copyright with personalityrights. The order was passed by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel. Rajeev Kumar v.
. “It Protects Them From Exploitation” The Claim : Capitalizing on celebrities’ identity subjects their personalityrights to potential abuse and jeopardizes their career and livelihood. This distinction is crucial.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content